Some of this all is amusing, like it's also an Aprils' fool
thing to mess up frequency and time domain, use symbols almost
interchangeably, etc. I hope especially the serious EEs will return to
the essence of the engineering profession and commit to a decent error
analysis in this old and almost boring field to really contribute to (I
mean seriously, Fourier transforms have been around a long time). I like
some theoretical competition, but the faster boys (and girls) and the
interesting workers in for instance audio applications appear to be way
too interested in claiming small stakes and trying out an alternative to
the normal long existing coverage of the subjects.
First year practicum, people, proper error analysis. For the others: the
holy grail of DSP isn't so much there where a lot of people are
searching, probably it's worth knowing that playing around with
cepstrums and so on isn't going to be more (or less) interesting than it
has been, it's ok, but extrapolating upward to some theory and corpus of
superior work is really not going to yield many worth while results,
besides some obvious and normal possibilities.
T V.
--
dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp mailing list and website:
subscription info, FAQ, source code archive, list archive, book reviews, dsp
links
http://music.columbia.edu/cmc/music-dsp
http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp
